Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maddog
A public work is just that: for the benefit of the whole public. It is in the name of the public, and for a public purpose, that a public entity is granted the power of eminent domain. Back in the bad old days, when (nation-)states were sovereigns, and all land belonged to the monarch, the state could take your land for its sovereign reasons, and was not obliged to pay compensation. The protective difference built into the U.S. Constitution is that, if the sovereign takes your property, it may only do so (1) for a public purpose, and (2) with payment of just compensation for the taking.
|
The problem is that a Starbucks can be justified as providing a public purpose: it provides jobs. So, one thing helps transportation, the other provides jobs. I'm trying to figure out why people get pissed off in one case, yet accept the other as if nothing is wrong. They both seem wrong to me.